The Gazette 1919-20

27

FEBRUARY, 1920]

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

could not, as against his client, retain the commissions, and that he was bound to refund them. (Reported W.N., 14 Feb., 1920, 64.) Dates of Spring Assizes, 1920. NORTH-EAST CIRCUIT. Co. Meath.—At Trim, Monday, March 1st, at 11.30 o'clock. Co. Louth.—At Dundalk, Wednesday, March 3rd, at 11.30 o'clock. Co. Monaghan.—At Monaghan, Friday, March 5th, at 11 o'clock. Co. Armagh.—At Armagh, Tuesday, March 9th, at 11 o'clock. Co. Down.—At Downpatrick, Friday, March 12th, at 12.30 o'clock. Co. Antrim.—At Belfast, Tuesday, March 16th, at 1 o'clock. Co. of the City of Belfast.—At Belfast, Monday, March 22nd, at 11 o'clock. Judges.— The Rt. Hon. the Lord Chief Justice ; the Rt. Hon. Mr. Justice Pirn. Registrars.— Wm. T. Sheridan, Esq., Soli citor, 1 Elgin Road, Dublin; Francis Kennedy, Esq., 25 Wellington Place, Dublin. NORTH-WEST CIRCUIT. Co. Westmeath.—At Mullingar, Monday, March 1st, at 11.30 o'clock. Co. Longford.—At Longford, Tuesday, March 2nd, at 11 o'clock. Co. Cavan.—At Cavan, Thursday, March 4th, at 1.30 o'clock. Co. Fermanagh.—At Enniskillen, Monday, March 8th, at 11 o'clock. Co. Tyrone.—At Omagh, Thursday, March llth, at 11 o'clock. Co. Donegal.—At Lifford, Monday, March 15th, at 11 o'clock. Co. Londonderry—At Londonderry, Thurs day, March 18th, at 11.30 o'clock. Co. of the City of Londonderry.—At Lon donderry, Saturday, March 20th, at 10.30 o'clock. Judges. —The Rt. Hon. Mr. Justice Gibson ; the Rt. Hon. Mr. Justice Dodd. Registrars. —Nathaniel Taylor, Esq., Soli citor, 23 St. Stephen's Green, N., Dublin ; W. Houston Dodd, Esq., Barrister-at-law, 46 Hannaville Park, Terenure, Co. Dublin.

Recent Legal Decision. CHANCERY DIVISION (ENGLAND).

(Before PETERSON, J.) Jordy v. Vanderpump.

Jan. 29, 30 ; Feb. 2, 3.— Solicitor—Insurance Company — Agent—Policy on life of client — Commissions — Written evidence of client's knowledge and consent. One of the questions arising in this action was whether a solicitor, who was agent of an insurance company and had effected with the company an endowment policy on the life of his client to enable the latter to carry through a mortgage transaction with other clients of the Solicitor, was entitled to receive and retain for his own use the commissions paid by the company to him in respect of the annual premiums on the policy. The evidence of the solicitor was that, when discussing with his client the question of effecting the policy, he told his client that there would be a commission coming to him (the witness), and that his client agreed. But the client in his evidence denied any such conversation ever took place or that he knew that his solicitor would receive a commission in any capacity. Peterson, J., in the course of his judgment, said that the question relating to these commissions depended upon whether the client knew that his solicitor was to receive them and consented to it. On that question there was a direct conflict of testimony1 between the solicitor and the client, and his Lordship was not at all satisfied that the solicitor's recollection was correct. One thing, however, was clear, and that was that if a solicitor intended to receive and retain commissions such as those in dispute, he should obtain at the same time some evidence in writing that he was entitled to receive and retain for his own use commissions so paid, and that his client knew of the fact and consented to it. In circumstances such as those under consideration the onus was on the solicitor, and his Lordship was not satisfied that the client knew that the solici tor would receive these commissions. On the cases cited, and upon principle, it was clear that in the circumstances the solicitor